 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / April 2004Some wild and crazy guys (and girls)
Dear Friends, Here are a group of people who want to make their eye NEARSIGHTED. http://wurm.laughingsquid.net/es/bbs/threads/48.html I though it was a "put on", but you can decide. Enjoy, Otis Engineer > Dear Friends, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Otis > Engineer Otis, I think that you have finally found a place where you can preach to the choir. LOL! DrG > > Dear Friends, > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > DrG Dear DrG, Certainly, that would be the group to do the "human experiment" you suggested could not be done. They would have to make their own measurements using an eye-chart and trial-lens kit, but it would be an easy experiment to conduct -- provided they do not mind that the refractive status of the test group (with -3 diopter lens worn all the time) moves negative relative to control group. Since the Donders-Helmoltz theory insists that a "delta" in the visual enviroment has NO EFFECT on the refractive status of the natural eye, we could determine the validity of that statment is about six months -- on a scientific level. Best, Otis Engineer >> Otis, I think that you have finally found a place where you can >> preach to the choir. LOL! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Certainly, that would be the group to do the > "human experiment" you suggested could not be done. Never suggested anything of the kind. I have not involved myself in any discussions of hypothetical experiments. All I have said is that current research does not seem to support some of your accusations. Yes, I call them accusations, because it has become increasingly clear that your agenda is really anti-optometry/optician as opposed to true science. DrG >> Otis, I think that you have finally found a place where you can >> preach to the choir. LOL! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Certainly, that would be the group to do the > "human experiment" you suggested could not be done. Never suggested anything of the kind. I have not involved myself in any discussions of hypothetical experiments. All I have said is that current research does not seem to support some of your accusations. Yes, I call them accusations, because it has become increasingly clear that your agenda is really anti-optometry/optician as opposed to true science. DrG > Dear DrG, > > Certainly, that would be the group to do the > "human experiment" you suggested could not be done. Should we hold our collective breaths until we see such a study with your fingerprints on it published in a reputable journal? I think not. DrG > > Dear DrG, > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > DrG Dear Dr. G, Your opinion, of couse. The ODs that "count" are now using a plus on their own children -- because the realize the importance of maintaining a "protective" hyperopic reserve of +0.5 diopters. That action speaks volumes about what is truly important in this issue. Best, Otis cc: ODs who care. When they care for their own children in this way -- they will care about YOUR chidren. >> > Dear DrG, >> > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > their own children in this way -- they will > care about YOUR chidren. No, I wouldn't say that this was "just my opinion." I think you are the one who is expressing the opinion, or the "second opinion," or "minority opinion" as you like to say. Where's the proof of anything you assert? Why aren't you being joined here by the legions of pilots, engineers, and ODs who support your "second opinion?" Why, just two or three would help your argument, if in fact they could buttress it with some research. DrG > >> > Dear DrG, > >> > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > DrG Dear DrG, You asked for proof that the natural eye moves negative at a rate of -1/3 diopters per year at a military academy. You choose to ignore that kind of proof -- and encourage others to ignore that kind of proof. I am certain you will NOT DISCUSS this situation with a person at 20/40 (-1/2 diopters) and you supply direct scientific PROOF of that attitude -- which I have learned is completely destructive. I believe a person of motivation and intelligence should be supplied with this type of evidence BEFORE a minus lens is applied -- and you believe you have no obligation to offer a discussion of this type of alternative. It is true that it does take fortitude and self-dicipline for the person to take over control and "do it himself", but again, given you attitude, I do not think he has any other choice. If you were more humble you might have learn a greater but a more difficult truth about this difficult matter. Because it is a "struggle" and depends on the fortitude of the individual, you obviously can never "prescribe" prevention. Best, Otis Engineer > Dear DrG, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that kind of proof -- and encourage others > to ignore that kind of proof. This is a misleading statistic. From this someone might infer that 100% of students have a 1/3 D myopic shift, when in reality some studenst show no shift whatsoever. > I am certain you will NOT DISCUSS this > situation with a person at 20/40 (-1/2 diopters) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > you believe you have no obligation to offer > a discussion of this type of alternative. If there was credible evidence, of course I would feel obligated to offer a discussion of it. I used to do this with the parents of children who were showing abnormal myopic progression, and the discussion centered around prescribing bifocals. I did this in the early days of my practice until I came to the conclusion that it was of dubious value. In other words, I learned from my own experiences and published studies. Why would I discontinue this practice, particularly when the price of a bifocal lens is at least double that of a single vision lens? Why? Because I choose to be ethical. > It is true that it does take fortitude and > self-dicipline for the person to take over > control and "do it himself", but again, > given you attitude, I do not think > he has any other choice. There is nothing wrong with my attitude. > If you were more humble you might have > learn a greater but a more difficult > truth about this difficult matter. This has nothing to do with humility, but simply matters of fact. If you tell me that plus lenses prevent myopic progression reliably, I will remember this the next time I encounter good evidence that it does as you claim. > Because it is a "struggle" and depends > on the fortitude of the individual, you > obviously can never "prescribe" prevention. My son is an accomplished pianist. Most people do not have the discipline to sit down and practice for the hour or two every day. The difference here is that I can assure my son that he will improve if he puts forth the effort. I cannot assure him that using a plus lens will prevent him from becoming nearsighted. He is -7.50. My wife is -3.50. I used to be -4.00, but I have improved spontaneously to -3.25. DrG Dear DrG, Thanks for your posting. I have obviously heard most of your arguments before. Please note that 1. I suggest that the plus be used BEFORE the minus lens is used AT ALL. 2. As you stated, the bifocal, (minus lens and plus lens) is almost DOUBLE the cost of the single-vision lens. Single vision = $150, Bifocal = $300. 3. But you missed the critical point. I suggest that the pilot take personal responsibility when he is at 20/40 and does not required the use of the MINUS LENS at all. Therefore NO BIFOCAL. 4. The cost of single vision spherical plus lenses is about $15.00. If used by the pilot, and the pilot verifies his distant vision clearing by checking his own eye chart, and passes the 20/20 line after intensive work, the cost (assuming use of several strength plus lenses) is about $75.00 The success of this effort depends COMPLETELY on the technical understanding, execution and control of the pilot -- and not on you. Sorry if you must be out-of-the-loop on the process. Best, Otis Engineer cc: Pilots who learned to do this for themselves, and ODs who assist their own children with this difficult but honest process. > > Dear DrG, > > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > DrG > The success of this effort depends > COMPLETELY on the technical understanding, > execution and control of the pilot -- and > not on you. Just as the success of vitamin C depends COMPLETELY on the understanding, execution and control of the person who has the cold. -MT > Dear DrG, > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > and ODs who assist their own children with this > difficult but honest process. Oh, I see. In one instance you wave around the Young Study on the use of bifocals to reduce myopic progression as "proof" of the effectiveness of more plus, but then discount the use of bifocals for that purpose. Are you now saying that the mechanism isn't the same? Doesn't being inconsistent bother you? But I get your point, which is that this must be done by "the Pilot" on his/her own terms, employing self-diagnosis and self-treatment without the intervention of anybody with O.D. after their name. At least you have dropped your cleverly veiled pretenses and admitted that keeping the O.D. "out-of-the-loop" is the chief objective. Perhaps you are so intent on this that you have actually convinced yourself that myopia could be prevented in the general population if only they would take up plus lenses at the 20/40 level. Very interesting, Otis. DrG > My son is an accomplished pianist. Most people do not have the discipline > to sit down and practice for the hour or two every day. The difference > here is that I can assure my son that he will improve if he puts forth the > effort. I cannot assure him that using a plus lens will prevent him from > becoming nearsighted. He is -7.50. My wife is -3.50. I used to be -4.00, > but I have improved spontaneously to -3.25. Well there you have it! A child's myopic progression is determined by the parents myopia and ultimately reaches a power equal to the sum of the parents correction. I have further proof. My dad is -2.00 -1.00 X 90 and mom is + 3.00 no cyl. Both my sister and I are +1.00 -100 X 90. The plot thickens, much as the chocolate pudding on the stove. Gotta go. --LB  SignatureDr. Larry Bickford, O.D. Family Practice Eye Health & Vision Care The Eyecare Connection http://www.eyecarecontacts.com larrydoc at eye-care-contacts dot com (remove -) >> My son is an accomplished pianist. Most people do not have the >> discipline to sit down and practice for the hour or two every day. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > --LB Eureka. Thank's for that bit of insight, Larry. The solution to myopia is for nearsighted and farsighted people to mate. DrG > The solution to myopia is for nearsighted and farsighted people to mate. NO NO! You'll create millions of little mixed astigmats! -MT >> My son is an accomplished pianist. Most people do not have the discipline >> to sit down and practice for the hour or two every day. The difference [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >I have further proof. My dad is -2.00 -1.00 X 90 and mom is + 3.00 no >cyl. Both my sister and I are +1.00 -100 X 90. Proof already? Just curious, isn't this exactly the kind of "anecdotal" evidence that you guys so shun? If it only takes two cases for you to prove your point, one would think that you being outdone by Bates people thousands of times over would have an effect. Just pointing out the double standard... Dave > Proof already? Just curious, isn't this exactly the kind of > "anecdotal" evidence that you guys so shun? In the broadest sense there is a tempering effect when myopes breed with hyperopes, but genetic inheritance is never just 3-2=1. I think LarryDoc forgot to add the smiley face. -MT >> Proof already? Just curious, isn't this exactly the kind of >> "anecdotal" evidence that you guys so shun? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > -MT You see, another example of how Bates adherents take the written word too literally. DrG >>> Proof already? Just curious, isn't this exactly the kind of >>> "anecdotal" evidence that you guys so shun? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >You see, another example of how Bates adherents take the written word too >literally. Another conclusion based on one case. You're doing it again... Dave >>>> Proof already? Just curious, isn't this exactly the kind of >>>> "anecdotal" evidence that you guys so shun? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Dave See, now you've provided yet another example. DrG > Dear Friends, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I though it was a "put on", but you can decide. I thought it was a put on, too. Although, when I had cataract surgery, I was given the choice of whether I wanted my eyes corrected for distance or close. I chose distance because that mimicked what I was already doing, wearing contacs for distance and reading glasses over them for close. I've been quite happy with my decision. The doctor thought that it was a good choice, given that I like to be outdoors. People who stay indoors and do mostly close work are the ones who choose to have their vision corrected to close, and then they have to wear prescription glasses to see far. SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net >I thought it was a put on, too. Although, when I had cataract surgery, I >was given the choice of whether I wanted my eyes corrected for distance or >close. I chose distance because that mimicked what I w etc. My father, who was a high myope before his cataract surgery, asked the cataract surgeon to leave him around -3 or -4. He was used to holding things close without glasses to read, and wanted to continue to do so. He turned out just around -3 in both eyes, and is very happy. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.